GRINNELL COLLEGE and THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANIES vs. RON OSBORN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 55 / 06–2063
Filed August 8, 2008
GRINNELL COLLEGE and
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANIES,
Appellants,
vs.
RON OSBORN,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D.
Rosenberg, Judge.
Employer appeals judicial review decision affirming award of benefits
by worker’s compensation commissioner. AFFIRMED.
David L. Jenkins of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C.,
Des Moines, for appellants.
Paul J. McAndrew, Jr. of Paul McAndrew Law Firm, Coralville, for
appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
The worker’s compensation commissioner awarded the appellee, Ron
Osborn, permanent and total disability benefits, finding his injuries arose
out of and in the course of his employment by the appellant, Grinnell
College. This decision was affirmed by the district court on judicial review.
Grinnell College and its worker’s compensation insurer, appellant The
Cincinnati Insurance Companies, filed this appeal. We affirm.
Osborn worked for Grinnell College for many years, initially as a
custodian and then, when he began to have shoulder problems from the
repetitive overhead work required by that position, he transferred to the
grounds department.
On August 15, 2000, Osborn worked with other
employees to spread three truckloads of pea gravel around some playground
equipment. Subsequently, he became ill and was eventually diagnosed with
a Campylobacter bacterial infection.
He now suffers from chronic fatigue
syndrome and has not worked since September 10, 2000.
Osborn filed this worker’s compensation action, claiming (1) he
suffered a cumulative injury to his shoulder while working as a custodian;
and (2) he contracted a Campylobacter bacterial infection from contaminated
pea gravel and his current condition and disability was a consequence of this
infection.
After a hotly contested hearing that included the testimony of
several experts with varying opinions, the deputy found Osborn sustained a
cumulative injury to his right shoulder on August 10, 1999, and that his
bacterial infection arose out of and in the course of his employment. The
deputy awarded healing period and permanent partial disability benefits for
the shoulder injury based on a twenty-percent industrial disability. Osborn
was awarded additional healing period and permanent partial disability
benefits based on a finding he sustained a forty-percent industrial disability
as a result of his bacterial infection and its sequela.
3
On intra-agency appeal, the commissioner affirmed the deputy’s
decision, as modified. The commissioner modified the decision to hold the
combined effect of Osborn’s two injuries caused him to become permanently
and totally disabled.
The commissioner’s decision was affirmed by the
district court on judicial review.
On appeal to this court, the employer challenges five findings made by
the commissioner: (1) that Osborn’s infection was contracted from the pea
gravel; (2) that Osborn was permanently and totally disabled; (3) that certain
medical expenses were related to Osborn’s treatment for his bacterial illness;
(4) that Osborn sustained an injury to his right shoulder on August 10,
1999; and (5) that Osborn suffered from a permanent disability as a result of
his shoulder injury. With respect to each specification of error, the employer
claims
the commissioner failed to properly interpret controlling legal
principles, employed irrational reasoning and acted arbitrarily,
capriciously, and with abuse of discretion in finding facts and
applying law to those facts, and further that the facts (even as
found by the agency) are inadequate to satisfy the governing
legal standards.
See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10) (2001) (setting forth standards for review of
agency decisions in contested cases).
We have considered in detail each of the arguments made by the
employer with respect to each specification of error and conclude there is no
basis upon which to reverse the commissioner’s award of benefits.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur except Baker, J., who takes no part.
This is not a published opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
